The Clown Show Starts With the Biggest Clown- Cruz is In -Fun Begins

[The Guesser]

January 17, 2016, 09:37 am [h=1]Trump: Ted Cruz is ‘nasty,’ a ‘total hypocrite’[/h] By Kyle Balluck



ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos


Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Sunday ramped up his war of words with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), saying Cruz is hypocritical in his attacks on the billionaire.
Trump said on ABC’s “This Week” that he doesn’t think Cruz “has a great chance, to be honest with you.”
“Look, the truth is, he's a nasty guy. He was so nice to me. I mean, I knew it. I was watching. I kept saying, ‘Come on Ted. Let's go, ok.’ But he's a nasty guy,” Trump said.
“Nobody likes him. Nobody in Congress likes him. Nobody likes him anywhere once they get to know him. He's a very - he's got an edge that's not good. You can't make deals with people like that and it's not a good thing. It's not a good thing for the country. Very nasty guy.”
Cruz has doubled down on his comments that Trump represents “New York values,” a charge Trump called hypocritical.
“Oh, he's a total hypocrite,” Trump said. “How about his fundraising and how about when he does his personal financial disclosure form, and he doesn't put on that he's borrowing money from Goldman Sachs and then today it comes out that he's also borrowing money from Citi Bank and he doesn't list it. You know why? He wants to look like Robin Hood. That he's the one protecting the people from the banks while he's actually borrowing money and personally guaranteeing it and not disclosing it, which is illegal.”

Trump on Sunday also rejected the notion that he would reject conservative values if elected.
“I don't think too many people are afraid of that okay, because if you look at the polls I'm leading Ted Cruz by a lot. He even lied about that. You know he got up and said, 'Well the polls.' Well the polls are showing that I'm the one that's on the upswing. He's the one on the downswing. A big downswing.”

 

[neverbend]

You are wrong all the time. Because Trump is in the field.....these debates are being watched like never before on the republican side.....which gives Cruz more exposure. Without trump.....most voters wouldn't even know who Cruz is. Once the stage gets less people....he gets more attention and people get more scared of him.

If Hillary had a choice of who to run against.....Cruz would be on top of the list.

Stick to hanging literature on door knobs

You are right on this one, even a blind squirrel grabs an acorn now and then!

Cruz has absolutely no support outside of the Mark Levin ultra right faction of the party,
unlike Trump who does well with independents & Reagan Democrats & even the blacks
which is very important in the general election. Trump can beat Mrs. Clinton and the only
candidate of the 5 in the top tier who doesn't have a chance against Clinton is Cruz.

Republican messaging guru Frank Luntz, referring to the year Reagan won 14 percent of that bloc of voters.
“They listen to him. They find him fascinating, and in all the groups I have done, I have found Obama voters,
they could’ve voted for Obama twice, but if they’re African-American they would consider Trump.”

Trump draws the starkest possible outsider-insider contrast with Hillary Clinton and successfully tars
her with her husband’s sexual history. If Trump can somehow shed his baggage and impose his preferred
narrative on the match-up with Clinton, he can appeal to female voters. “He’s a masculine figure and that
will attract women to him,” said Nunberg. “It’s their dirty little secret. They like Donald Trump.”

If he does all that, holds Mitt Romney’s states, and drives extraordinary levels of working-class white voter
turnout in the suburbs and exurbs of Ohio and Virginia, as well as in the Florida panhandle and Jacksonville,
he can flip those three Obama states and rack up 266 electoral votes. Winning any one of Iowa, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, Nevada or New Mexico would put him over the top and make Donald John
Trump the 45th president of the United States.


if Trump can somehow shed his baggage and impose his preferred narrative on the match-up with Clinton, he can appeal to female voters. “He’s a masculine figure and that will attract women to him,” said Nunberg. “It’s their dirty little secret. They like Donald Trump.”
Trump has a terrific chance to win the general election, Cuz has less of a chance than anyone in the top tier including
Kasich, & Bush.


Think about the fact that the Supreme Court deciding to revisit Obama's immigration executive orders,
allowing 5 million illegal aliens to remain here and work. Trump never held a grudge, wouldn't the country be
better served with Trump bringing a moderate in the fold as VP & appointing Cruz where he'd better serve
the common good as a member of the Supreme Court seconding the conservative thoughts & votes of
Alito, Scalia & Thomas.

 

[The Guesser]

The Palin Clan Declares War On Ted Cruz As Republicans Completely Self Destruct

By: Sarah Jonesmore from Sarah Jones

Tuesday, January, 19th, 2016, 2:37 pm

​

Senator Ted Cruz’s spokesman Rick Tyler should have kept his big mouth shut, y’all. He’s gotten Bristol Palin back in the news, so thanks Rick. And of course her mother Sarah Palin, reality TV show person from years ago, who is this close to endorsing Republican 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Never has a more perfect union been seen. A moment please.
Cruz spox Tyler warned Sarah Palin not to endorse Trump earlier today, saying such an endorsement would “be a blow to Sarah Palin.”
LOL. It’s fair to say Republicans don’t own any mirrors and thus are unaware that there is no blow lower than Sarah Palin can and has dished out upon her own self, from quitting her job as governor amidst swirling rumors and unmanaged crises and charges of violating those pesky ethics rules that are meant to keep a politician from using their position for personal gain. Clearly Alaska never saw Sarah Palin and her clan coming, because these wily people weren’t about to be stopped by stupid ethics.
The Palins have in fact gone on to profit in every way imaginable, even in ways that would be considered a “blow” by normal politicians. And when I say “normal” politicians, I am of course not referring to Ted Cruz, who can’t share the national spotlight with Sarah Palin, but only because they are both too greedy and selfish to share anything with anyone else as clever and good at pickpocketing their base.
Back to the pressing matters at hand. Having been warned off endorsing Donald Trump by Ted Cruz, who sees himself stealing the Donald’s easily manipulated base for himself once Donald implodes, Bristol Palin got angry. Ad when then Palins get mad… Well, you’ve seen the pictures. Luckily no cops were called to this as Bristol used the mighty power of the blog (even though her mother has long hated on bloggers, irony we love you today) to hit back and oh, so subtly warn Cruz – IT’S COMING AND YOU CAN BLAME YOURSELF FOR LOSING THE POWERFUL ENDORSEMENT OF THE QUEEN OF THE DEAD TEA PARTY!
You see, Bristol feels Cruz displayed “arrogance” for suggesting the (imminent, it seems, if all of this drama is for naught it will be just another Palin grab for the spotlight) Trump endorsement would be a “blow”.
Chastising Cruz for comments that she claimed “slam my mom” , Bristol evinced the Palin pettiness (in a blog on faith, naturally) that she hopes her mom will indeed endorse Trump just out of revenge, because this is all about the Palin ego and not who might actually run this country.
“After hearing what Cruz is now saying about my mom, in a negative knee-jerk reaction, makes me hope my mom does endorse Trump.”
Remember when anyone who didn’t support Sarah Palin was a sexist? Well, that show is over and since she didn’t win, totes forgotten. Now anyone is better than Hillary Clinton. You know, ‘cuz Hillary Clinton is a winner and the Palins hate winners. It hurts to see a woman whose daughter has actually weathered far more real personal attacks from high level Republicans and conservatives making a go at the White House. Not because it was wrong to attack Chelsea Clinton, but because Palin seems to think she’s the Only Victim in the country.
So Bristol reminded Ted Cruz of this thing called “loyalty”, a thing Sarah Palin does not apply to the man (another Senator and one who, by the way, can’t stand Ted Cruz) who championed her and put her on the Republican ticket in 2008:

important]I like Cruz. In fact, I met him last year, and I believe anyone’s better than Hilary Clinton. But here’s the thing, Sen. Cruz. My mom has consistently supported you and encouraged you. You’ve been a great advocate for conservative causes, and she’s stood by you when others haven’t
​

From the people who used their reality TV show to sneer at Michelle Obama for caring about what kids are eating in this country, Bristol Palin is now outraged at the idea of anyone being rude in return to her mother. I mean, hello. Blood libel, Ted Cruz. Watch your step, Senator. Bristol charged, “Cruz’s flip-flop, turning against my mom who’s done nothing but support and help him when others sure didn’t, shows he’s a typical politician. How rude to that he’s setting up a false narrative about her!”

important]I didn’t go to Harvard Law School, but I know this: You can like two people in a race, but there will only one president
important]The audacity to suggest that because she chooses one over the other will somehow “damage” her just shows arrogance.
important]You’ve also said, “She can pick winners!” I hope you’re right, and that she endorses Donald Trump today for President.You mess with a Palin and you are going to have your education thrown in your face as a bad thing, sooner rather than later. Nothing gets the Palin/Trump base fired up more than attacking the educated. God knows we wouldn’t want someone who knows anything to be in charge of the world.​

Bristol’s blog post is pure vintage Palin. Self pity, resentment, and promises of vengeance.
There will be no grace shown. Sarah Palin will endorse Donald Trump out of pure spite, as any American patriot would when it comes to the running of the free world.
But also — Ted Cruz should have know better. Donald Trump slyly offered the Department of Energy to Sarah Palin, or rather, let her think he would. What is Ted Cruz offering Palin? This is all about what Palin gets and if it includes access to cameras all the better.
Cruz is already trying to water down the warning with a tweet that doesn’t take it back but is meant to appease the Palin evangelical base that he relies on to pad his wallet:
Will she or won’t she?
Stay tuned as the Palins take this brief moment in the sun to remind you all why you are so glad McCain/Palin didn’t win in 2008, and why in fact the Republican Party needs a timeout. For real.

 

[ScottL]

This Sarah Jones chick comes across as a real enema bag.

 

[The Guesser]

Cruz says, I'll see your Crazy Palin, Donald, and Raise.

anuary 19, 2016, 09:29 pmGlenn Beck to appear with Cruz as he swats at Trump

By Rebecca Savransky

Conservative media personality Glenn Beck will make appearances with Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Saturday in Iowa, ABC News reported late Tuesday.

The news came shortly after Beck took to Facebook on Tuesday to attack Cruz's rival Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee who endorsed Trump the same day.

"Small Government, lower taxes, fewer regulations and the constitution? Not any more," Beck wrote.

"Big government, bailouts, executive orders, not just abortion but partial birth abortion, nationalizing of banks, stimulus, pathway to citizenship."

He said all of these views were held by Trump during the Obama administration and asked what caused Trump to change his views so much.

Beck also accused Trump of giving money to prominent Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel after "Sarah and the tea party won a hard fought election and were under attack.

"I couldn't disagree with her more but she has played the game now for years," he wrote. "Perhaps she knows more than those of us still on the outside."


Beck, a longtime opponent of Trump, said last week that it will be a "gigantic mistake if this country chooses Donald Trump" as its next president.

As president, Trump would be a "monster much, much worse" than President Obama, Beck added at the time.

Cruz and Trump are battling for first place in polls in Iowa, which are less than two weeks away.

In an interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly last week, Beck said that ”Cruz is my guy."

"Ted Cruz is a guy who says I'm for these principles, exactly like Ronald Reagan was, these are the principles and I'm going to be tethered and tied to these," Beck said.

He added that if Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wins the GOP presidential nomination, he'd vote for him, but he has "real deep problems with Rubio."

 

[The Guesser]

I wonder what supposed(when it suits them) Constitutional Originalists, Including Canadian Cruz, think of this:

Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution

The closer you study the Constitution, the weaker Ted Cruz's case squares with the actual meaning of "natural-born"

EINER ELHAUS

• 
  [*=center]

TOPICS: TED CRUZ, ELECTIONS 2016, EDITOR'S PICKS, DONALD TRUMP, NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, CAN TED CRUZ BE PRESIDENT, CAN TED CRUZ RUN FOR PRESIDENT, CONSTITUTION, AOL_ON, BUSINESS NEWS, LIFE NEWS, NEWS, POLITICS NEWS

(Credit: Reuters/Chris Keane)​

The argument that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president initially looked strong, then probable but uncertain. But closer examination shows it is surprisingly weak.


The constitutional text provides that a president, unlike other elected officials, must be a “natural born citizen.” This language could not mean anyone born a citizen or else the text would have simply stated “born citizen.” The word “natural” is a limiting qualifier that indicates only some persons who are born citizens qualify. Moreover, when the Constitution was enacted, the word “natural” meant something not created by statute, as with natural rights or natural law, which instead were part of the common law.
At common law, “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military.
The argument for Cruz rests on some old statutes, namely English statutes enacted before the U.S. Constitution and U.S. statutes enacted just after. But neither turns out to be persuasive on closer examination.
The English statutes extended natural-born status to persons born abroad whose father was any English subject, rather than only a public official. Some argue that the constitutional framers meant to refer to this statutory redefinition of the term “natural born.” But that position contradicts the ordinary meaning that the word “natural” indicates a non-statutory meaning. Moreover, Prof. Mary McManamon offers convincing evidence that the Framers meant the common law meaning. James Madison himself said in 1789 that the U.S. used the place of birth rather than parentage. In any event, Cruz’s father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born (again unlike McCain), so these English statutes do not help Cruz.
The U.S. statute in 1790 provided that “children of citizens of the United States” that are born abroad “shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” This has been thought the strongest evidence for Cruz’s position since so many 1790 congressmen had participated in the Constitutional Convention. However, this statute did not say these children were natural-born citizens. It instead carefully said they “shall be considered as” natural-born citizens, suggesting that Congress thought they were not natural-born citizens but should be treated as such. Indeed, there would have been no need to pass the statute if they were already understood to be natural-born citizens.
Further, when this Act was reconsidered in a few years, Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in 1795.


The contrary position also has two difficulties. It defines a “natural-born citizen” to mean anyone who Congress has defined to be a citizen at birth; that is, anyone born a citizen. This effectively reads the word “natural” out of “natural born citizen.” It also means Congress can by statute change the constitutional limit on who can run for president, when the whole point of constitutional limits is typically that Congress cannot change them.
In short, both textualism and originalism cut strongly against Cruz being a natural-born citizen. Some argue that living theories of constitutional interpretation cut in favor of Cruz, but even living theories start with text and history, and it is not clear why the principle animating the clause would merit a different conclusion in current times. Presumably modern equal protection norms would bar a sexist rule that said children born abroad with one U.S. parent were natural born only if that parent were a man. But that is no argument against the interpretation that persons are natural born citizens only if born in a U.S. territory or to a parent serving the U.S. abroad.


The concern at the time was obviously that foreign-born persons might not be as loyal to the U.S. One might think that concerns about disloyalty are odd for persons who have lived in the U.S. as citizens for a long time, but that oddity was also true at the founding. Moreover, no one claims the clause means that naturalized citizens (who may have lived in the U.S. since they were small children) are eligible to run for president, even though they had to do far more to prove their loyalty to the U.S. than someone born abroad who happened to have one U.S. citizen parent.
The line between those born in the U.S. versus abroad to U.S. parents certainly seems debatable. But it is no less sensible than the alternative line between those born abroad to U.S. parents versus those have been naturalized citizens for decades. This is one of those issues where general principles (even living ones) do not dictate any particular dividing line, and we need some technical fixed rule. Unfortunately for Ted Cruz, that technical rule does not permit his candidacy.

 

[superbeets]

Cruz says, I'll see your Crazy Palin, Donald, and Raise.

anuary 19, 2016, 09:29 pmGlenn Beck to appear with Cruz as he swats at Trump

By Rebecca Savransky

Conservative media personality Glenn Beck will make appearances with Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Saturday in Iowa, ABC News reported late Tuesday.

The news came shortly after Beck took to Facebook on Tuesday to attack Cruz's rival Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee who endorsed Trump the same day.

"Small Government, lower taxes, fewer regulations and the constitution? Not any more," Beck wrote.

"Big government, bailouts, executive orders, not just abortion but partial birth abortion, nationalizing of banks, stimulus, pathway to citizenship."

He said all of these views were held by Trump during the Obama administration and asked what caused Trump to change his views so much.

Beck also accused Trump of giving money to prominent Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel after "Sarah and the tea party won a hard fought election and were under attack.

"I couldn't disagree with her more but she has played the game now for years," he wrote. "Perhaps she knows more than those of us still on the outside."


Beck, a longtime opponent of Trump, said last week that it will be a "gigantic mistake if this country chooses Donald Trump" as its next president.

As president, Trump would be a "monster much, much worse" than President Obama, Beck added at the time.

Cruz and Trump are battling for first place in polls in Iowa, which are less than two weeks away.

In an interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly last week, Beck said that ”Cruz is my guy."

"Ted Cruz is a guy who says I'm for these principles, exactly like Ronald Reagan was, these are the principles and I'm going to be tethered and tied to these," Beck said.

He added that if Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wins the GOP presidential nomination, he'd vote for him, but he has "real deep problems with Rubio."

Cruz says, I'll see your Crazy Palin, Donald, and Raise.


When and where did Cruz say this ?

 

[superbeets]

On Tuesday, Cruz tweeted: "I love @SarahPalinUSA Without her support, I wouldn't be in the Senate. Regardless of what she does in 2016, I will always be a big fan."

Ted CruzVerified account‏@tedcruz
​

​

​

I love @SarahPalinUSA Without her support, I wouldn't be in the Senate. Regardless of what she does in 2016, I will always be a big fan.

• RETWEETS1,373
• LIKES2,222
• 

10:55 a.m. - 19 Jan 2016


Reply

Retweet




Like


More

 

[The Guesser]

Cruz says, I'll see your Crazy Palin, Donald, and Raise.


When and where did Cruz say this ?

He didn't, I did, you dense, idiotic Brit Twit. hno:. Go Suck off Putin, you fool.

 

[superbeets]

He didn't, you dense, idiotic Brit Twit. hno:. Go Suck off Putin, you fool.

You said
Cruz says, I'll see your Crazy Palin, Donald, and Raise.


reOST #305

 

[The Guesser]

You said
Cruz says, I'll see your Crazy Palin, Donald, and Raise.


reOST #305

Yes, I said.

 

[superbeets]

I wonder what supposed(when it suits them) Constitutional Originalists, Including Canadian Cruz, think of this:

Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution

The closer you study the Constitution, the weaker Ted Cruz's case squares with the actual meaning of "natural-born"

EINER ELHAUS
TOPICS: TED CRUZ, ELECTIONS 2016, EDITOR'S PICKS, DONALD TRUMP, NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, CAN TED CRUZ BE PRESIDENT, CAN TED CRUZ RUN FOR PRESIDENT, CONSTITUTION, AOL_ON, BUSINESS NEWS, LIFE NEWS, NEWS, POLITICS NEWS

(Credit: Reuters/Chris Keane)​

The argument that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president initially looked strong, then probable but uncertain. But closer examination shows it is surprisingly weak.


The constitutional text provides that a president, unlike other elected officials, must be a “natural born citizen.” This language could not mean anyone born a citizen or else the text would have simply stated “born citizen.” The word “natural” is a limiting qualifier that indicates only some persons who are born citizens qualify. Moreover, when the Constitution was enacted, the word “natural” meant something not created by statute, as with natural rights or natural law, which instead were part of the common law.
At common law, “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military.
The argument for Cruz rests on some old statutes, namely English statutes enacted before the U.S. Constitution and U.S. statutes enacted just after. But neither turns out to be persuasive on closer examination.
The English statutes extended natural-born status to persons born abroad whose father was any English subject, rather than only a public official. Some argue that the constitutional framers meant to refer to this statutory redefinition of the term “natural born.” But that position contradicts the ordinary meaning that the word “natural” indicates a non-statutory meaning. Moreover, Prof. Mary McManamon offers convincing evidence that the Framers meant the common law meaning. James Madison himself said in 1789 that the U.S. used the place of birth rather than parentage. In any event, Cruz’s father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born (again unlike McCain), so these English statutes do not help Cruz.
The U.S. statute in 1790 provided that “children of citizens of the United States” that are born abroad “shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” This has been thought the strongest evidence for Cruz’s position since so many 1790 congressmen had participated in the Constitutional Convention. However, this statute did not say these children were natural-born citizens. It instead carefully said they “shall be considered as” natural-born citizens, suggesting that Congress thought they were not natural-born citizens but should be treated as such. Indeed, there would have been no need to pass the statute if they were already understood to be natural-born citizens.
Further, when this Act was reconsidered in a few years, Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in 1795.


The contrary position also has two difficulties. It defines a “natural-born citizen” to mean anyone who Congress has defined to be a citizen at birth; that is, anyone born a citizen. This effectively reads the word “natural” out of “natural born citizen.” It also means Congress can by statute change the constitutional limit on who can run for president, when the whole point of constitutional limits is typically that Congress cannot change them.
In short, both textualism and originalism cut strongly against Cruz being a natural-born citizen. Some argue that living theories of constitutional interpretation cut in favor of Cruz, but even living theories start with text and history, and it is not clear why the principle animating the clause would merit a different conclusion in current times. Presumably modern equal protection norms would bar a sexist rule that said children born abroad with one U.S. parent were natural born only if that parent were a man. But that is no argument against the interpretation that persons are natural born citizens only if born in a U.S. territory or to a parent serving the U.S. abroad.


The concern at the time was obviously that foreign-born persons might not be as loyal to the U.S. One might think that concerns about disloyalty are odd for persons who have lived in the U.S. as citizens for a long time, but that oddity was also true at the founding. Moreover, no one claims the clause means that naturalized citizens (who may have lived in the U.S. since they were small children) are eligible to run for president, even though they had to do far more to prove their loyalty to the U.S. than someone born abroad who happened to have one U.S. citizen parent.
The line between those born in the U.S. versus abroad to U.S. parents certainly seems debatable. But it is no less sensible than the alternative line between those born abroad to U.S. parents versus those have been naturalized citizens for decades. This is one of those issues where general principles (even living ones) do not dictate any particular dividing line, and we need some technical fixed rule. Unfortunately for Ted Cruz, that technical rule does not permit his candidacy.

A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution


<b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">

 

[superbeets]

Yes, I said.

And what you said was incorrect. It could not be further from the truth.


On Tuesday, Cruz tweeted: "I love @SarahPalinUSA Without her support, I wouldn't be in the Senate. Regardless of what she does in 2016, I will always be a big fan."


Today Guesser posted Cruz says, I'll see your Crazy Palin, Donald, and Raise.

 

[The Guesser]

And what you said was incorrect. It could not be further from the truth.


On Tuesday, Cruz tweeted: "I love @SarahPalinUSA Without her support, I wouldn't be in the Senate. Regardless of what she does in 2016, I will always be a big fan."

It was correct, because that's what he did. Palin is an moron, Beck is an idiot. Trump rolled out his clown, Cruz raised. Simple concept. Except for you.

 

[superbeets]

 

[superbeets]

It was correct, because that's what he did. Palin is an moron, Beck is an idiot. Trump rolled out his clown, Cruz raised. Simple concept. Except for you.

No, it was not correct Cruz did not say I'll see your Crazy Palin, Donald, and Raise.

 

[The Guesser]

I know Hillary didn't satisfy Vlad. He's waiting for you to do the job right, like usual.

 

[superbeets]

It was correct, because that's what he did. Palin is an moron, Beck is an idiot. Trump rolled out his clown, Cruz raised. Simple concept. Except for you.

A word salad. Well done.

 

[superbeets]

I know Hillary didn't satisfy Vlad. He's waiting for you to do the job right, like usual.

You know so much.

 

[neverbend]

Cruz says, I'll see your Crazy Palin, Donald, and Raise.

anuary 19, 2016, 09:29 pmGlenn Beck to appear with Cruz as he swats at Trump

By Rebecca Savransky

Conservative media personality Glenn Beck will make appearances with Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Saturday in Iowa, ABC News reported late Tuesday.

The news came shortly after Beck took to Facebook on Tuesday to attack Cruz's rival Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee who endorsed Trump the same day.

"Small Government, lower taxes, fewer regulations and the constitution? Not any more," Beck wrote.

"Big government, bailouts, executive orders, not just abortion but partial birth abortion, nationalizing of banks, stimulus, pathway to citizenship."

He said all of these views were held by Trump during the Obama administration and asked what caused Trump to change his views so much.

Beck also accused Trump of giving money to prominent Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel after "Sarah and the tea party won a hard fought election and were under attack.

"I couldn't disagree with her more but she has played the game now for years," he wrote. "Perhaps she knows more than those of us still on the outside."


Beck, a longtime opponent of Trump, said last week that it will be a "gigantic mistake if this country chooses Donald Trump" as its next president.

As president, Trump would be a "monster much, much worse" than President Obama, Beck added at the time.

Cruz and Trump are battling for first place in polls in Iowa, which are less than two weeks away.

In an interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly last week, Beck said that ”Cruz is my guy."

"Ted Cruz is a guy who says I'm for these principles, exactly like Ronald Reagan was, these are the principles and I'm going to be tethered and tied to these," Beck said.

He added that if Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wins the GOP presidential nomination, he'd vote for him, but he has "real deep problems with Rubio."

This is pretty hilarious. This Beck guy who almost everyone concedes has a few screws
loose, Cruz announced will be campaigning with him tomorrow!
What is Cruz going after with this endorsement
the those with mental deficiencies. It will just give Trump the opportunity to pile on.